Key Takeaways
|
Since the October 7 attacks, the Biden administration has provided Israel with tremendous levels of military, diplomatic, and political support. Hoping this public embrace would increase American influence and leverage behind the scenes, President Biden immediately visited Israel and sent his top diplomat to Jerusalem and the wider region half a dozen times in the last six months. In the meantime, the White House approved more than 100 weapons sales. It provided diplomatic cover for Israel’s brutal invasion of Gaza at the United Nations Security Council, where it has vetoed several resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire.
For all this support to Israel, today, the Biden administration has precious little to show regarding influence. The hawkish radical right-wing Israeli leadership shows no sense of gratitude for American support, and the country is led by a politician whose only chance of remaining in power seems to be the continuation of the war in defiance of American advice for diplomacy and a better strategy. It is hard to avoid the impression that the Israeli-US partnership has reached a turning point after the death of more than 32,000 Palestinians and the quasi-total destruction of Gaza.
Equally important is the fact that American public opinion is also turning against Israel in an election year. Gallup recently found that the majority of Americans now disapprove of Israel’s handling of the war. Fifty-five percent are currently against Israel’s actions, while only 36 percent approve. This should not come as a surprise when American TV is full of images of traumatized Gazans facing famine and a humanitarian catastrophe.
In the eyes of the Biden administration, the critical weakness of the current Israeli strategy is that it is aimed at defeating Hamas militarily without addressing legitimate Palestinian humanitarian grievances and without paying enough attention to global public opinion. The White House believes Israeli tactics are reducing Gaza to an ungovernable failed state that will require further Israeli occupation and produce more terrorist groups for years. The fundamental change in the administration’s policy toward Israel reportedly occurred in late February, following an incident in which more than 100 Palestinian civilians were killed when a humanitarian truck convoy reached Gaza City.
Biden has steadily ramped up pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to allow more humanitarian aid and to rein in its offensive in the Gaza Strip. That includes public criticism of Israel and the recent US abstention vote at the UN Security Council that allowed for a ceasefire resolution to pass. As the rift between Washington and Jerusalem deepened, President Biden even backed remarks by Chuck Schumer, Democratic Senate majority leader, and the highest-ranking elected Jewish official, calling Netanyahu an impediment to peace and urging Israelis to hold elections to replace him.
The American president has publicly and incrementally raised his objection to Israeli military tactics in Gaza and articulated that further mass civilian casualties in case of a major Israeli offensive to Rafah constitute a red line for American support to Israel. In other words, President Biden wants Israel to call off its ground invasion of Rafah, where 1.4 million Gazans have found refuge and four Hamas battalions are reportedly situated. There have been high-level military discussions in Washington in the last few weeks, mainly at the level of defense ministers, to communicate the need for a more targeted offensive with surgical strikes.
American TV is full of images of traumatized Gazans facing famine and a humanitarian catastrophe. (AFP)
Conditioning Military Aid?
The US provides Israel with nearly US$ 4 billion a year, mainly in the form of military assistance. Since the October 7 attacks, foreign military sales to Israel have increased exponentially. House and Senate Democrats are now willing to put conditions on military assistance. Aid to Israel has become a partisan issue because House Republicans favor increasing support with a US$ 17.6 billion package that is now awaiting congressional approval. Senate and House Democrats have instead demanded that the Biden administration comply with the Foreign Assistance Act and cut off military aid if Israel continues to block US humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Under pressure from Democratic lawmakers, the White House mandated relevant US government agencies to “obtain credible and reliable written assurances” from foreign governments that US weapons are used in accordance with international and humanitarian law. Israel has recently provided assurances that it is acting responsibly in providing humanitarian aid to Gaza. The White House and the State Department have until early May to formally assess the assurances and report to Congress. If they were not found “credible and reliable,” Biden may have the option of suspending future US arms transfers.
Despite growing pressure, American military support is continuing unabated. On March 29, the Washington Post reported that in recent days the transfer of billions of dollars in bombs and fighter jets to Israel was authorized by the White House. This new arms package includes more than 1,800 MK84 2,000-pound bombs and 500 MK82 500-pound bombs. The package also includes the transfer of 25 F-35A fighter jets and engines worth roughly US$ 2.5 billion. Notably, these sales were already approved by Congress over a decade ago and, therefore, did not require new notification to lawmakers.
The US provides Israel with weapons systems and munitions for both deterrence and warfighting. Placing conditions for defensive systems – for example, the Iron Dome missile defense system – is a risky strategy because while Hamas’s rocket-launching capacity has been curtailed, Hezbollah has between 120,000 and 200,000 missiles and other stand-off systems that can target Israel and would likely overwhelm Israel’s air defense capabilities.
There is, however, a less risky way to condition military assistance should Biden focus on specific types of offensive weapons systems, such as large-diameter bombs, bunker busters, and a range of precision-guided munitions. Although a ground invasion of Rafah resulting in massive casualties has emerged as a red line for the White House, there is no clear sign at the moment that Biden is seriously considering curbing military assistance to Israel. As long as Israel does not cross clear American red lines, the likelihood of conditioning aid seems low. And there seems to be a tacit agreement between Washington and Jerusalem that Netanyahu has postponed plans to invade Rafah until May.
What Does Washington Want?
The critical question is what Washington is getting in return for such military support. In other words, as Biden stops short of using his strongest leverage – conditioning US aid – are there precise demands from Israel? There is no shortage of high-level military and diplomatic discussions between Washington and Jerusalem. Even when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled a high-level delegation visit to Washington after the US did not veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and the unconditional release of all hostages from Gaza, his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant was in Washington in talks with Defense Secretary Llyod Austin.
It is clear by now that the Biden administration is opposed to a major Israeli ground operation to Rafah. In that sense there seems to be more clarity on what Washington does not want to see. There is a clear recognition that four Hamas battalions remain in Rafah. However, these forces are either underground or dispersed among the 1.4 million Palestinians. This, Biden believes, should preclude the kind of scorched-earth invasion or massive air strikes that have so far produced tens of thousands of deaths in the rest of Gaza. The White House is no longer willing to tolerate a Palestinian carnage during a presidential election year. Although Netanyahu insists that the goal of “total victory” against Hamas cannot be achieved without invading Rafah, the Biden administration is imploring Israel to find an alternative to “smashing into Rafah.”
One alternative strategy discussed in Washington is that Israel should conduct a much more limited campaign with surgical strikes, more special forces, and fewer air raids. This would amount to fighting Hamas operatives with less intensity and less casualty for the civilian population. To some degree, Israel has already made this adjustment. In January, Israel announced it shifted to a smaller, more surgical strategy. US officials estimated at the time that Israel had reduced the number of Israeli troops in northern Gaza to fewer than half of the 50,000 who were there in December. However, the Israeli tactics are still heavily reliant on airstrikes that end up killing too many civilians to get to sometimes a single mid-level Hamas operative.
Senior US officials have told their Israeli counterparts the Biden administration would support a counter-terrorism strategy consisting of Israel going after high-value Hamas targets in and underneath Rafah – as long as Israel avoids a large-scale invasion that could fracture the alliance. In addition to adjusting tactics and rules of engagements, Washington wants Israel to adopt a sound political strategy in the conduct of the war. There are four critical American demands from Israel: to curtail civilian casualties, to set up safe zones, to increase humanitarian aid, and to move to a longer-term political solution.
There seems to be a tacit agreement between Washington and Jerusalem that Netanyahu has postponed plans to invade Rafah until May. (AFP)
A Comprehensive Integrated Peace Process
This last element is critical for the Biden administration’s strategy toward Israel, Gaza, Palestine, and the larger regional dynamics. It starts with a ceasefire coupled with the release of hostages. In other words, Washington needs Netanyahu to agree to a ceasefire deal for its ambitious strategy to launch a “comprehensive, integrated peace process,” ultimately aiming for a two-state solution.
US officials say they are nearing an agreement with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan to present Israel with a package deal to resolve the Gaza situation with the eventual goal of establishing a Palestinian state. The package would include a plan for how to administer Gaza and rebuild the bombarded territory, and Arab states would offer guarantees for Israel’s security. Saudi Arabia would normalize relations with Israel, a major step in Israel’s ties with the region. In return, Israeli leaders would have to agree to a two-state solution and to other steps that would boost the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority, which Netanyahu has long derided. At a New York campaign event on March 28, Biden said Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, were prepared to “fully recognize Israel” for such a deal.
The plan is overly ambitious and, at this point, a highly unrealistic effort to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is disconnected from the current Israeli government’s hard-right political tendency and is highly contingent on forming a new government in Jerusalem. The White House maintains that presenting this political vision is important because it provides an alternative to the current path of destruction and a potential point of reference for the Israeli opposition and public opinion.
Having created the vision, American officials hope to present the plan during a ceasefire and hostage release, which continues to be negotiated in Qatar between Israel and Hamas, with Qatari, Egyptian, and US teams as interlocutors. While Secretary Blinken and CIA Director William Burns are conducting negotiations for a ceasefire and the list of Palestinian prisoners and Israeli hostages to be released, Brett McGurk, Biden’s top White House Middle East aide, is spearheading the diplomatic effort for a “grand bargain” conducive to a Palestinian state with normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Conclusion
Six months into the Israel-Hamas war, there is real potential for the war to widen in other areas of the Middle East, especially if Israel’s skirmishes with Hezbollah and Iran on the border with Lebanon and Syria escalate. The fact that at least three senior commanders and four officers overseeing Iran’s covert operations in the Middle East were killed on April 1 when Israeli warplanes struck a building in Damascus that is part of the Iranian embassy complex does not bode well for efforts to avoid military escalation in the Middle East.
Such escalation proves the alternative to diplomacy and political solutions is a broader war. Although unrealistic, Saudi Arabia and the United States are highly motivated to get a deal done quickly ahead of the US presidential election in November. A deal would represent a significant diplomatic victory for a president whose foreign-policy record has been plagued by crisis management from Afghanistan to Ukraine to the Middle East. For its part, Saudi Arabia is keen to see a defense pact with the United States make it through the Senate while the Democrats hold the majority. It is essential to note that Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham promised to secure the additional votes to reach the two-thirds majority required to ratify such an agreement.
Some of the most consequential diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East came on the backs of war, including the 1978 Camp David Accords that cemented relations between Israel and Egypt after the 1973 war and the 1993 Oslo Accords setting up a vision for a two-state solution after the First Intifada and the First Gulf War in 1991. However, achieving any final deal or grand bargain in the Middle East during an election year in an expedited timeline ahead of the US elections with one of the most dysfunctional Congresses in modern history will probably prove impossible. What is a more realistic and feasible alternative, however, would be for Biden to announce just the parameters of a grand bargain as a roadmap in the spring as part of his presidential re-election campaign. Even for such a prospect, Biden urgently needs a lasting ceasefire.